Food, farming, and hunger

Of the 5.9 million children who die each year, poor nutrition plays a role in at least half these deaths. That’s wrong. Hunger isn’t about too many people and too little food. It’s about power, and its roots lie in inequalities in access to resources and opportunities.

Policy Solutions to End Hunger in America

For the first time in more than 50 years, the White House will host a Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health. The Biden Administration plans to release a strategy at the conference with the goals of ending hunger by 2030 and increasing healthy eating to reduce rates of diet-related diseases like diabetes, obesity, and hypertension. The last conference hosted in 1969 was a springboard for developing nutrition assistance programs and other anti-poverty measures over the past five decades. But over the years, these programs have been neglected and their effectiveness eroded. Revolutionizing our strategies is long overdue to meet the challenges we face today. Below we outline the solutions necessary to make true and lasting change through both specific programmatic changes and larger-scale philosophical shifts. Both are necessary to promote health and long-term improvement in food security in the United States.

The USDA reports that 38.3 million people (about 10.5 percent of U.S. households), including 6.1 million children (8.4 percent of children) lived in a household that experienced food insecurity in 2020.

Children, single parent families (especially single mothers), Indigenous, Black, and immigrant families, the elderly, and adults with disabilities are the most likely to experience food insecurity. This causes disproportionate suffering amongst people who experience the greatest discrimination. Hunger is prevalent in every region of the U.S. but highest in southern states.

Food insecurity has been connected to a number of chronic health conditions including obesity, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes. It is estimated that food insecurity results in an additional $77.5 billion in health care expenditures each year.5 Food insecurity also negatively impacts mental health, educational attainment, and work performance which affects all aspects people’s lives, especially when they are young.

Due to systemic issues rooted in capitalism and gender and racial discrimination, families face barriers to opportunity resulting in challenges to earning sufficient income. These barriers make it difficult to afford the rising costs of food, housing, healthcare, education, transportation, and more. The result often forces families to make trade-offs that lead to inconsistent access to the nutritious food necessary for everyday life.

Corporate greed continues to reduce the value of a day’s work and raise costs on goods and services. Limiting tax revenue from corporation reduces government support for families to realize their full potential and build a foundation to thrive. Additionally, up until now, people with lived experience of food insecurity have been largely left out of discussions to identify hunger and poverty solutions, evaluate progress, and hold the government accountable.

The following are the programmatic and deep philosophical policy solutions that must be implemented to address the systemic issues at the root of food insecurity and diet-related illness in America from many different angles. Without these actions, all other approaches will be ineffective, temporary fixes.

The first section of solutions provide a framework or lens through which all policy and programmatic efforts to address food insecurity and nutrition-related health should be viewed. These include the overarching philosophical shifts necessary in how we approach the specific programmatic changes that are noted in the second section of solutions. Each solution includes examples of actions that should be taken when embracing these more meaningful changes, though they are not meant to be all encompassing lists.

The U.S. must commit to ensuring the right to food and freedom from hunger. The right to food should be the center of the development of all food-related policies. Actions include:

Hunger cannot be addressed without the input and leadership of true experts–people with lived experience of food and economic insecurity. They should not just be included in storytelling opportunities but rather should be provided leadership roles at federal and state levels as advisors and experts in the redevelopment of programs and policies. Actions include:

All levels of government must create the economic, social, and zoning conditions that ensure local communities have greater sovereignty over their food systems. Governments must take action to restrict large multinational food companies and factory farms from monopolizing the food system. These monopolies result in decreased food quality and availability and increased corporate influence in policy development and environmental destruction, both of which are negatively impacting our global climate. Actions include:

In all policy efforts, we must ensure they contribute not only to human health but to the health of ecosystems and the planet. This includes altering the federal nutrition assistance programs to ensure that food production practices support healthy lands, waterways, and ecosystems. Actions include:

Programs do not just affect individuals but have ripple effects in families and communities. Therefore, all programs should consider at least two generations and bonding between caregivers and their children. All programs and policies should resist government tendency to reduce every person to a “unit” that can be administratively separated from others who are important to them. Actions include:

A solidarity economy includes various sharing and mutual aid processes such as cooperatives that help people earn a living, share resources, and stay connected. Charity, on the other hand, is predicated on a power dynamic where the wealthy bestow kindness and goodness to others who do not have power. It is a one-way relationship that focuses on the giver rather than the receiver. To join people in solidarity demands that “givers” be accountable to the group by sharing power, decision-making, resources, and trust. Addressing food insecurity long-term requires moving away from traditional emergency food models. Actions include:

The criminal justice system does little to heal violence or deter crime but creates more trauma and poverty. Oftentimes, people sit in prison simply because they cannot afford to pay bail. Incarcerated people are set-up for failure the minute they enter the criminal justice system–a system that disproportionately targets Black and Indigenous people. Many face systemic barriers to living wage employment and life-long bans from public assistance programs upon release.15 Because of this, formerly incarcerated people are twice as likely to face food insecurity as the general population. Actions include:

Healing-centered approaches acknowledge how exposure to violence and trauma have broad and long-lasting effects on emotional, physical, and financial health. People who experience poverty or who have little money for housing and food are very likely to have experienced exposure to violence and discrimination. Actions include:

White supremacy culture is broad, complex, and oppressive. Its characteristics such as perfectionism, paternalism, power hoarding, and either/or thinking are deeply rooted in U.S. public assistance programs. To overcome it, we must embrace empathy, shared decision-making, diffusion of power, teamwork, and relationship building. Actions include:

Beyond financial remuneration, reparations must also focus on health, healing, education, peace, justice, and cooperation. However, financial reparation is an important component of establishing accountability and supporting people to move out of poverty and Improve health and wellbeing. The U.S. must acknowledge past violence against Black and Indigenous people and begin a reparations process that includes:

This section of solutions focuses on specific, actionable program and policy changes that are essential to addressing poverty and hunger and supporting the health and well-being of all Americans.

With a decentralized public assistance network where each program has different eligibility, requirements, and applications, administrative processes can be incredibly confusing for administrators and participants alike, which can deter families from seeking assistance. Many public assistance programs demand lengthy paperwork for administration, eligibility, and ongoing participation. During the pandemic, much of this paperwork was reduced or eliminated, bringing programs into the twenty-first century. The changes must remain and become standard operating procedure, and the system must be simplified by:

Nutrition assistance programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Child Nutrition Programs have proven effective in reducing food insecurity, but they often fall short in eliminating hunger long-term. Existing nutrition programs must be improved by:

Low wage workers are one of the single largest groups impacted by food insecurity. The lack of safety and consistency provided by employers more interested in profits than the health of their employees has left the American public to supplement the cost of low wages while greedy CEO’s make record salaries. The health and safety of American workers must be protected by:

The elderly and people with disabilities are much more likely to experience food insecurity and challenges accessing public assistance. Additional efforts must be made to ensure people are protected from food insecurity by:

Access to quality healthcare plays a major role in positive health outcomes. When the system fails to support people in meeting their basic needs, their health suffers. This costs the health system, and ultimately the American people, billions of dollars every year. Tying health care to employment is problematic, as was seen during the pandemic. The cost of health insurance, co-pays, and medical debt prevents many people from ever becoming financially and food secure. This can be avoided by:

For many families, the cost of childcare is the largest single household expense - more than even housing. Accessible and affordable childcare would increase the number of women in the workforce and reduce poverty, especially for women of color who disproportionately fill low-wage childcare role by helping them earn the money necessary to meet the basic needs of their families. More must be done to ease the burden childcare places on working parents by:

Direct cash payments, and specifically the Child Tax Credit, as seen during the pandemic, had measurable impact on child poverty and food insecurity. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) program guarantees a set amount of money to every person with no means test or work requirement. It would be paid for by taxing the ultra-wealthy. Over time, UBI would replace means-tested programs, such as TANF and SNAP, that exacerbate and justify stigma against people who are poor. In many cases, these programs are subsidizing low wages from wealthy corporations and CEO’s who are forcing workers into poverty through sub-living wages. Food insecurity could be substantially reduced by:

To make true and lasting impact on food insecurity in America, and achieve the goal of ending hunger by 2030, profound cultural, societal, and systemic change is required. This change must be rooted in mutuality, solidarity, and care at all levels of government and society for it to be effective and sustainable. This policy brief outlines specific and actionable changes within existing programs and policies. As well, it details the fundamental philosophical shifts needed to undo the ongoing impacts of systemic racism, gender discrimination, and capitalism that underpin the continuation of poverty and hunger in the United States. Without swift and radical change, we will continue to repeat the same ineffective actions while bringing about the same results.

Lawmakers pressed to Improve solutions for military hunger

Lawmakers writing this year’s defense authorization bill will soon decide once again how best to help military families plagued by food insecurity, as legislative efforts to date have failed to help more than 99 percent of those in need, official figures show.

Nearly 1 in 4 active-duty servicemembers — or about 286,800 people, not counting their family members — suffer food insecurity, according to the most exact Pentagon survey of the force. Of those, about 120,000 deal with “extreme food insecurity,” the department found.  

But Congress’ purported solution to the problem, a so-called basic needs allowance, or BNA, is helping only about 2,400 troops — or just 0.8 percent of the 286,800 reportedly in need, CQ Roll Call disclosed in January, citing figures provided by the Defense Department. 

The question Congress has grappled with is how best to determine which servicemembers should be eligible for the income supplement. 

The basic needs allowance, as currently crafted, requires that troops’ housing allowances must count toward their income. Such payments go to servicemembers who live off base and sometimes amount to thousands of dollars.

Getting rid of that requirement would result in 21 times as many military families receiving aid, Rand Corp. said in a study earlier this year. 

To achieve that, the House’s fiscal 2024 NDAA would for the second straight year drop the requirement to include housing payments as income under the program — something anti-hunger advocates and military family supporters have long called for.

But the Senate’s NDAA, for the second straight year, does not follow suit. And the Senate’s approach has become law so far. 

This year’s Senate NDAA includes an incremental and, critics say, insufficient tweak to the program. The Senate’s NDAA would supply the service secretaries more latitude to exclude housing payments from income calculations in cases the secretaries believe it is warranted.

A spokesman for Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “No servicemember or their family should ever go hungry. Sen. Reed has helped widen eligibility for food assistance for members of the military and civilians alike. That is reflected in the NDAA and Defense Appropriations bills, and should be in the Farm bill as well.”

However, anti-hunger advocates, military family groups and a chorus of lawmakers from both parties said via email this week that they support the House’s more sweeping and direct approach, not the Senate’s.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a former Air Force officer who chairs the House Armed Services Military Quality of Life Panel, was an early advocate of the basic needs allowance and a supporter of ensuring the program’s eligibility rules include as many servicemembers as need help.

“The Senate has historically taken a different view on this issue, but we believe the growing weight of evidence of military families in crisis will eventually carry the day,” Bacon said. 

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., also an Air Force veteran and ranking member of the Quality of Life Panel, said she will also work diligently to advocate for the House position on the program during the NDAA conference.  

"Hunger among our troops and their families is unacceptable, and it is a reality our nation needs to face," Houlahan said. "My colleagues and I have heard from too many in uniform whose cost of living is outpacing their paycheck, and the small number of families currently being helped by the BNA program compared to the need speaks for itself.”

New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she supports the House's approach on this issue.

“I support the inclusion of the House language in the conferenced NDAA, which would expand BNA eligibility and strengthen the health and well-being of our armed forces," Gillibrand said.

The basic needs allowance was created by the fiscal 2022 NDAA to ensure no servicemember’s salary falls below 130 percent of the poverty line. Since then, Congress has upped the target to 150 percent of the poverty line and has allowed service secretaries to go as high as 200 percent in some cases.

However, few food-insecure troops have benefited from the initiative, Pentagon figures indicate.

The reason, experts agree, is that counting housing allowances toward income has inflated troops’ income figures and consequently narrowed the number of eligible beneficiaries.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee’s mostly closed door NDAA debate in June, the panel opted to write into the bill a tweak to the program’s rules. 

Current law permits the armed services’ secretaries to remove the housing allowances from eligibility determinations for a servicemember who lives somewhere with a “high cost of living.” The Senate’s new bill would also allow the secretary to issue such a waiver for a person in uniform who “otherwise has a demonstrated need.” 

Critics say that change is probably not enough to make a difference in program outcomes.

First, it is unclear, they say, how many servicemembers have benefited from these waivers to date. 

The Pentagon’s figures suggest it is not many, given that only 0.8 percent of food-insecure members are getting the aid.

While the Senate’s proposed tweak might or might not help, these observers say, a more direct approach is needed. 

“The NDAA is one of our biggest opportunities every year to put our money where our mouth is and show our values when it comes to our servicemembers and our national security," said Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee and its Quality of Life Panel. “In San Diego alone, 45,000 servicemembers, veterans, and military families visit the San Diego Food Bank every month. Ensuring that the housing allowance doesn’t factor into eligibility for the BNA will ensure more military families can put food on the table.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee and its Quality of Life Panel, agreed.

“Servicemembers who dedicate their lives to defending our country should not go hungry,” Strickland said. “Including housing payments in income calculations for the BNA forces servicemembers to choose between putting a roof over their heads or food on the table.”

Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., who has regularly pushed for a more expansive basic needs allowance program, said junior enlisted personnel are most at risk from hunger. 

“It’s distressing to imagine that some who serve in our nation’s military are forced to rely on food assistance programs to help feed their families,” Panetta said. “However, it’s absolutely shocking to learn that there are low-income military families who are unable to access that type of support simply due to a bureaucratic calculation.”

Outside groups are also pressuring NDAA conferees to take a more effective approach than they have so far to the assistance program for food-insecure military families.

“By failing to remove bureaucratic barriers for those who serve our country yet suffer the indignity of hunger, the Senate once again missed an opportunity to create meaningful change,” said Abby J. Leibman, CEO of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, in a July 27 press statement. 

Josh Protas, MAZON’s vice president of public policy, said the Senate’s proposed alteration is not directive enough.

"The Senate provision does not go far enough and leaves too much to interpretation to the Department of Defense that risks military families continuing to fall through the cracks, struggling with food insecurity without access to the assistance they need and deserve,” Protas said.

The National Military Family Association “strongly supports” the House NDAA’s approach to the basic needs allowance, said Eileen Huck, the group’s senior deputy director of government relations. 

“The Basic Needs Allowance is an important tool to help struggling military families, but as currently implemented too few families are able to benefit from it,” Huck said.  

Many of the members who want to expand the Pentagon’s basic needs allowance program by changing the eligibility requirements want to do the same to the Agriculture Department’s similar rules for determining servicemembers’ eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The SNAP rules also mandate that servicemembers’ housing payments count as income.

By comparison, military housing payments are not counted toward taxable income by the IRS and for most other federal programs, experts said. 

Moreover, because the military’s housing allowances predominantly go to defray expenses for troops who live off base in privately run housing, not to servicemembers who live on base, the basic needs allowance creates a disparity among servicemembers by inflating the income calculation of those who live off base, some critics say. 

The SNAP eligibility rules will be part of the debate over this year’s farm bill. 

MAZON's Protas said it is not enough to just change the rules in either the Pentagon program or SNAP. Both must be fixed, he argued. 

“Because of such negative public perceptions of SNAP that have been exacerbated in exact years by politicians who irresponsibly spout off harmful stereotypes and misinformation in their attempts to make cuts to the [SNAP] program, there continues to be heightened stigma and reluctance to apply for SNAP among military families, veterans, and others, even when they badly need the help and should be eligible,” he said. “The Basic Needs Allowance can continue to serve an important role to assist military families that chose not to apply for SNAP because of such stigma."